Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 7:57:00 PM (view original):Here's the difference. I would change my opinion in a second if there was real evidence of a young earth. I don't care one way or the other, other than that I want to know what actually happened.

Would you? If someone was able to provided indisputable evidence of an old earth, would you change your beliefs?

The only thing is, no INDESPUTABLE evidence will ever be found one way or another.

I choose to believe in God for other reasons, and some may think that is stupid and narrow minded. I believe there is more evidence against evolution and the Big Bang Theory than for it. So therefore I believe in a Creator.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 7:57:00 PM (view original):Here's the difference. I would change my opinion in a second if there was real evidence of a young earth. I don't care one way or the other, other than that I want to know what actually happened.

Would you? If someone was able to provided indisputable evidence of an old earth, would you change your beliefs?

Honestly? Yes. Only a fool would continue to believe something against indisputable evidence. But indisputable evidence doesn't and will never exist. You're just delusional enough to think your position is factually supported.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):The beginning of life isn't evolution. I don't have any idea how life started. But it did, somehow.

I'm asking for evidence of a young earth.

I don't believe there is any. Even Christians differ on the matter. I firmly believe (a) the Earth could be old or young; (b) evolution could in fact have occurred; and (c) it was all guided by a omnipotent being.

This link is not proof of creationism. It's a convoluted argument. (my comments in red).

Direct evidence for Creation:

The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.

Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

So basically, the belief that God created the universe if the first piece of evidence supporting creationism. Huh?

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. The next piece of evidence for creationism is God's claim that he created everything. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? Because it says so in the Bible. We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? The Bible must be true and accurate because we base our calendar on the birth of Jesus. In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Even Jesus says that God created everything. Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn’t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil. He certainly wasn’t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism. Well gosh, then it must be true!

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):The beginning of life isn't evolution. I don't have any idea how life started. But it did, somehow.

I'm asking for evidence of a young earth.

I don't believe there is any. Even Christians differ on the matter. I firmly believe (a) the Earth could be old or young; (b) evolution could in fact have occurred; and (c) it was all guided by a omnipotent being.

This link is not proof of creationism. It's a convoluted argument. (my comments in red).

Direct evidence for Creation:

The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.

Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

So basically, the belief that God created the universe if the first piece of evidence supporting creationism. Huh?

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. The next piece of evidence for creationism is God's claim that he created everything. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? Because it says so in the Bible. We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? The Bible must be true and accurate because we base our calendar on the birth of Jesus. In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Even Jesus says that God created everything. Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn’t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil. He certainly wasn’t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism. Well gosh, then it must be true!

My reason for posting that really wasn't that it supported much, just that it wasn't hard to find stuff on it. Although I believe the Bible, I do know that using the Bible to justify the Bible won't fly with non-believers, and for a good reason.

To be honest, I skimmed that very quickly. The main thing I like is the C.S Lewis work-- that is worth a read for anyone wondering about a Christian's view. I'm not saying there aren't holes, but he does give a very convincing argument.